Gardner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

187 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “MR. VanWINKLE: Your Honor, we would renew our motion to have the State provide us with transcripts of the pretrial hearings. We have some case authority that says the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceeding when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal. We would argue that we definitely need it for ús to have transcripts or at least part of these pretrial proceedings, particularly, the testimony of some of the identification witnesses could be used for possible impeachment purposes at the time of trial, I don’t think that would be particularly costly to the State. It could be done privately— THE COURT: The expense is not what I’m worried about, Mr. VanWinkle, that’s not— MR. VánWINKLE: Is it the time? THE COURT: It’s just that we don’t have the time. I’ve got other cases. My court reporter is going to be busy then. And for her to sit up and transcribe stuff all night long, she’s not going to be effective in the Courtroom. MR. VanWINKLE: Could the Court make the tapes available that we’d hire some private— THE COURT: No, sir, this had not been done any time since I’ve been in office, ■ here, it’s not been done, as far as I know, since 1971, since I’ve practiced law, here in this town, where we’ve made tapes or transcripts or anything else available, whether you could pay for it or not. It’s just not been done. We just don’t have the time to do that. MR. VanWINKLE: We’re not asking this court reporter to do that. If the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gardner v. Norris

2. “However, Gardner has failed to cite any authority for either broad proposition and has failed entirely to provide convincing argument on these points. If, without further research, it appeared at all that the arguments were well taken, we could ignore the failure to cite authority. Under the circumstances, because the arguments are so obviously lacking in merit and are unsupported by any citation of authority, we decline to research the issues on appellant’s behalf and will not consider either point. Ricarte v. State, 290 Ark. 100 , 717 S.W.2d 488 (1986); Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857 , 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noel v. State

3. “The fact that photographs are inflammatory is not alone sufficient reason to exclude them. [Citations omitted.] Inflammatory pictures are “admissible in the discretion of the trial judge, if they tend to shed light on any issue or are useful to enable a witness to better describe the objects portrayed or the jury to better understand the testimony, or to corroborate testimony.” [Citation omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bradford v. State